j a 8\'05H 



Justice seems lame as well as blind amongst us. 



Hawaiian 



44 



Annexation" 



(Japan's Trade Important) Imperils Trade 



Annexation Should be Submitted to the People 



Junius 




Hauaaiian * ' Annexation ' '— 
TftflDE and Threats. 

That the "scheme" of the Hawaiian annexationists in 1893 
was well and carefully conceived by persons possessed of so- 
called " diplomatic " ability admits of no doubt. But the weak 
points in its consummation are many and serious, but none 
are more apparent than the lack of appreciation of the force 
of great moral principles which ought to guide nations as well 
as individuals. While the active and timely interposition of 
our flag and naval forces brought success to what is now the 
Hawaiian oligarchy, those very agencies stand in the path- 
way of " annexation." To keep the " scheme" afloat until it 
could be fully consummated, the American people have been 
surfeited ever since 1893 with Hawaiian specials — some in- 
tended for one purpose and some for another but all in sup- 
posed aid of " annexation." Some have been appeals to 
avarice, others to excite alarm, and some to raise a spirit of 
territorial aggression as against foreign nations supposed and 
alleged to be covetous. 

The annexationists appear to have relied quite as much on 
the weakness of the American people as upon anything else 
to keep their "scheme" afloat, and they certainly have 
pressed the average American citizen hardest in his weakest 
points. It has been a period of persistent agitation to manu- 
facture, concentrate and consolidate American sentiment and 
it must be frankly confessed that the country is pretty thor- 
oughly saturated with these efforts. The most surprising 
thing about the matter is that our people should for a moment 
consider that there has ever been a day or an hour when there 
was the slightest danger of any foreign nation seizing or 
dominating the Hawaiian Islands. Our policy is too well 
understood to give that idea even a decent footing. 

And then too we have had the threat from Hawaii, that the 
Islands would transfer their trade, unless the United States 
annexed them. 

In view of the $66,000,000 of sugar duty bounty which the 
United States has already extended the Hawaiian "Sugar 
Trust" since 1876, this threat to transfer trade simply fur- 
nishes evidence of Hawaiian ingratitude for favors already 
extended ! It is in perfect accord, however, with the selfish- 



2 



ness of "Trusts" generally and of the Hawaiian " Sugar 
Trust" in particular, but it is an empty one. The Ha- 
waiian sugar planters could not realize upon it. Because of 
the proximity of the Islands to the United States — compared 
with other nations, we have always had, have now and would 
continue to control the Hawaiian trade. // cannot advanta- 
geously go elsewhere / Nations and people trade where they 
can do so on the best terms. Commerce is not sentimental. 
Thirty-five years ago — long before the free sugar or reciprocity 
treaty existed, the United States had four-fifths of the trade 
of the Hawaiian Islands. (House Ex. Doc. i, part i, page 
135; 53d, 3d.) But while that is true, a glance at our domestic 
trade going into the Islands shows no material increase in four- 
teen years ! The trade coming to us has materially increased, 
but almost entirely in sugar because of the great advantage 
which our " free sugar " treaty of 1875-6 gave the Hawaiian 
" Sugar Trust " — to the detriment of our treasury receipts and 
our home sugar industry ! 

It must be noted that the figures we produce from House 
Doc. 426, p. 1647, 54th, 1st, are domestic exports to Hawaii. 
Those exports were not as much in 1895 as in 1883. In fact 
less by nearly one million in 1895, compared with 1890, and 
less by over a million and a quarter in 1895, compared with 
1891, and not as much as they were in 1892 ! 

1883 $3,683,000 

1890 . 4,606,000 

1891 4,935,000 

1892 „ 3,662,000 

1895 3,648,000 

Since the so-called " reciprocity" or free sugar 
agreement was entered into in 1875-6 and down 
to and including 1890, a period of 15 years, 

our total imports from Hawaii were, $109,800,000 

Which shows an annual average of. 7,320,000 

The annual average balance of trade against us 

for the 15 years has been over 4,500,000 

"Annexation " means that for all time the United States 
would remit duty on Hawaiian sugar and rice and thus not 
only lose about $8,000,000 per annum which would need to be 
raised from our taxpayers in some other way, but we would be 
giving foreign sugar planters a great advantage over our 
domestic beet-sugar industry — as the climate and soil in 
Hawaii are superior and labor cheaper. As our domestic ex- 
ports to Hawaii do not exceed four millions a year, we would 
by annexation wipe out the revenues from Hawaiian sugar, 



3 



tantamount to making the Island planters a present of our ex- 
ports and of four millions besides! 

The "magnificent " business that has been built up with 
the Hawaiian Islands, that so affects some of the emotional 
advocates of annexation, does not appear very attractive upon 
investigation. The Hawaiians have far more cause to become 
enthusiastic over the magnificent business that they have 
built up with the United States, and at our expense ! The 
total amount of purchases by Hawaii from the United States 
is only $4,000,000 annually, or the amount of business that is 
done in San Francisco in two days. Chicago does as much 
business on any working day before noon as the purchases of 
the Hawaiian Islands from the United States amount to in a 
whole year. New York does more business in an hour. 

The confidence of many that the "business " of this coun- 
try with Hawaii is capable of practically unlimited extension 
takes no account of the conditions. The character and limited 
population give an indication of their purchasing capacity. 
The population of the eight islands numbers 109,020. Of 
these, 24,407 are Japanese, 21,616 are Chinese, and 15,191 
are Portuguese. These are laborers practically, to a man, and 
have neither the means nor the inclination to purchase goods 
imported from the United States. Of the remaining 47,806- 
people, 39,504 are Hawaiians of full or part blood, and the 
majority of these are in the same financial condition. 
In a recent report to the State Department William Haywood,, 
United States Consul General at Honolulu, gives some in- 
formation about the Hawaiian sugar crop, which this year is 
estimated at 248,566 tons. The reports of labor show that of 
the 22,000 laborers employed on sugar plantations, 11,394 
were Japanese, 6,861 Chinese, 1,902 Portuguese and 1,356 
Hawaiians. Mr. Haywood says the Japanese seem to be pre- 
ferred by the planters, seventeen of whom favor their employ- 
ment, against six for Chinese, six for Portuguese, four for both, 
Chinese and Japanese, and two for Hawaiians. 

Some figures prepared by the Attorney-General of Hawaii 
and included in Mr. Haywood's report are interesting. In. 
1890 the Japanese laborers numbered 8,624 out of a total of 
18,959 laborers employed on sugar plantations ; 13,019 out 
of a total of 20,536 in 1892 ; 13,684 out of a total of 
21,294 in 1894; 11,584 out of 20,095 in 1895, an< * I2 >^95; 
QUt of 23,782 in 1896. The Chinese laborers were 4,517 in 
1890 and decreased to 2,617 in 1892. They numbered 
6, 289 in 1896. The Portuguese and Hawaiians varied very 
little in numbers. These figures are questioned as being 
far below the actual line — for "annexation" purposes, 



4 



The Chinese and Japanese live on rice, the Kanakas on poi. 
This leaves about 8,000 people from among whom the pur- 
chasers of American goods are to be drawn. The annual 
trade of Hawaii with this country is about one-third that of 
Los Angeles or Syracuse, N. Y., and about one-half that of 
Lowell, Mass., or Tacoma, Seattle, or Spokane, in Washing- 
ton. The articles exported from this country to Hawaii are 
only such as they cannot obtain cheaper elsewhere. Since 
the advent of the Canadian line they have imported hay, lum- 
ber, grain, potatoes and other merchandise, formerly pur- 
chased in this country, from Canada. Most of their other 
importations now come from England, France and Germany, 
as the import duty is only 10 per cent — not enough to favor 
importations from this country. Hon. S. M. Damon, Haw- 
aiian Minister of Finance, asserts that out of a total export 
list of $15,500,000 in 1896 the Hawaiians sent us $15,000,000 
in sugar, free of duty, the duty on which, under the Wilson 
bill even, would have amounted to $6,000,000. Their whole 
argument about their vast trade with the United States is, 
that out of a total import of $7,000,000 into the Islands 
$5,250,000 come from the Pacific ports and $250,000 from the 
Atlantic ports, a total of $5,500,000 of imports from the 
United States, not all of which is domestic. 

Could they have advanced any weaker argument in advocacy 
of the maintenance of the reciprocity treaty with the United 
States when, by their own financial statements, it is thus shown 
that the duty remitted on sugars that they send to us would exceed 
in value their entire purchases from the United States ? 

If we are looking after trade why not direct our vision in 
other directions? 

Our exports to the British East Indies — sugar 

producing colonies — in 1892 were $3,675,000 

or about equal to those to Hawaii in 1895. Why 
not let in sugar " free " from there? 

We exported to Argentina — a sugar producing 

nation — in 1892 2,643,000 

and yet as much as we desire her trade, we duty 
her sugar. 

We exported in 1892 to the Guianas — sugar colo- 
nies — over 2,363,000 

but we duty sugar from there. 

And why ignore independence for poor suffering Cuba ! 
She lies right at our doors ! Our export trade alone to Cuba, 
before her war, was nearly $20,000,000. Her independence 
would increase our exports to her 50 per cent. Why go 2,100 
miles away to Hawaii for four millions of trade which must 
come to the United States in any event? 



5 



The fact is that this "annexation" treaty is not based oft 
trade ; it's " free " sugar — -a scheme to escape paying us duly on 
Hawaiian sugar and rice, both of which are agricultural pro- 
ducts competing with our own. 

The more material trade feature in this "annexation" 
scheme that is of increasing and of more importance to the 
United States — than our petty export trade to Hawaii, is the 
maintenance of our trade with Japan ! A few ambitious jin- 
goes in the United States, with political, railway, cable, 
land, naval and other conspirators and a "Sugar Trust" 
in Hawaii, may be ready to give up our right to $8,000,- 
000 of revenue a year from Hawaiian sugar and imperil 
our trade with Japan, in order to secure — what? What 
would "annexation " give the United States except what she 
has, aside from responsibility and expense, beyond present com- 
putation? Between one-third and one-fourth of Japan's total 
exports come to the United States ! Very naturally a friendly 
feeling has come to be entertained by Japan toward the 
United States, and her exporters to America are anxious to 
increase the imports from that country in return for articles 
bought from us. Largely through the efforts of these men the 
imports of such products as iron, locomotives, timber, flour> 
kerosene oil and cotton have largely increased and would con- 
tinue to increase even faster in the future if our relations re- 
main friendly. The imports of cotton alone directly from the 
United States promise soon to equal the value of silk exports to 
the United States from Japan. In the same spirit a Japanese 
line of steamers runs to Seattle. Another, with steamers 
now building, will run to San Francisco. These lines have 
not only the object of encouraging exports from Japan, but 
exports from the United States to Japan. 

The items of our exports to Japan show that the Western 
and Southern people are liable to make a great mistake in too 
hastily changing trade with Japan for that of Hawaiian " free" 
sugar. Japan is a country of large and increasing population 
and importance. Ought we to even risk her trade for the very 
much smaller trade with Islands which can never contain 
much population, and hence can never have much trade? It 
may be as well for those who are forcing this " annexation " 
scheme for pretended trade purposes, to examine this matter 
a little more closely. The Japanese are a very sensitive people! 

It is asserted that for the very strong reasons embraced in 
a protest filed with the United States, Japan has certain rights 
which we are bound to respect. Her claim is said to rest on 
this, that — 

"The acquisition of Hawaii by annexation to the United 



6 



"States would deprive the resident Japanese on the Islands 
" of rights to which they are at present entitled under the 
" present treaty with Hawaii. At present there are 25,000 
"Japanese on the Islands, with large property rights, and 
" under the present conditions they are entitled to become 
" citizens of Hawaii. In case of annexation these Japanese 
" could not become citizens of the United States, as the de- 
cisions of the United States circuit courts are to the effect 
" that no Asiatic can become a citizen of the United States. 
"By annexation the Japanese now resident in Hawaii would 
"be subject to any measures that may be adopted by the 
"United States. They would lose the right to become citi- 
" zens and to vote, and the large interests owned by Japanese 
" citizens in the Islands would be greatly jeopardized ; there- 
" fore the Japanese government must firmly protest against 
" the proposed annexation." 

If this is the situation, we can readily see why Japan seeks 
to protect her people. She would not be respected if she did 
not. But it is said, all this will be cared for by our Congress — 
after annexation! It had better be cared for now / Our 
trade with Japan is quite important in character and far more 
extensive than our trade with Hawaii. We should not run the 
least risk of imperiling it. The Japanese minister to the 
United States, Toru Hoshi, in "New Japan," says — "No 
" citizen of this country should be ignorant of the fact that 
" among the people of Japan there is a genuine and deeply 
" rooted attachment to the United States." 

Recent statistics show that there has been a great increase 
in our exports to Japan, which have risen from $3,288,282 in 
1892, a year of large general exports, to $13,233,970 for the 
fiscal year just closed. The increase over the fiscal year 1896 
amounts to about $5,500,000. 

The following table exhibits the growth of our exports to 
Japan of the articles mentioned : 





1892. 


1894. 


1897. 


Wheat flour \ 


$179,246 


$211,579 


$819,620 


Cotton 


132,729 


360,492 


2,345>° l6 


Cotton cloths 


i°,33° 


42,764 


141,264 


Machinery 


5°>3 22 


26,104 


909,031 


Manufactures, iron and steel 


147,110 


192,607 


2>5 68 ,75 2 


Leather 


i39>3 8 4 


115,028 


213*853 


Oils, mineral, refined 1 


,812,414 


2,226,247 


4,222,383 


Paraffine 


976 


73>3 T 5 


171,476 


Tobacco 


160,571 


170,904 


407,557 


Wood and manufactures of.. 


42,912 


3^339 


218,714 



In other items, also, there has been a substantial increase. 



7 



During the year just ended the value of Japanese goods 
brought into the United States was $24,009,756. Compared 
with last year, this is a decrease of about $1,500,000. Of the 
113,343,175 pounds of tea imported by the United States dur- 
ing the fiscal year 1897, Japan supplied 45,465,161 pounds, 
and China 56,483,924 pounds. 

The import of chief value — raw silk — was last year valued 
at $10,010,835. Raw silk is free of duty. Manufactured 
silk, which is dutiable, was valued at $2,758,962. The total 
value of free goods imported during the year was $18,808,609, 
and of dutiable goods $5,201,147. These figures are a fair 
representative of recent years. In connection with the im- 
portation of Japanese teas it is noted that the prices have in 
fifteen years decreased fully one-half. 

So that we sent to Japan in 1897 four times as much of domes- 
tic exports as we sent to Hawaii ! And the character of our 
exports— cotton and flour and machinery — make that trade 
very important to our farmers, and equally important to skilled 
labor. Senators from Minnesota, Pennsylvania and from Ala- 
bama should give Japanese trade some consideration, and 
not waste too much sentime?it on the Hawaiian " Sugar Trust ' ' ! 

In November last the Chicago Tribune said — 

" About 30,000 bales of cotton are booked for ship.i ent to 
" Japan this winter from the single port of Seattle. This is 
" said to be 50 per cent more in value' than the value of all 
"American exports to Japan during the season of 1894-95." 

And then, too, if trade is one real object of Hawaiian an- 
nexation, what about our important trade with Cuba? As a 
leading Ohio journal well says, if trade is to be a governing 
consideration — "Cuba is at our doors, Hawaii a long way 
"off. It is less than 100 miles from Key West to the capital 
" of Cuba ; from San Francisco to Honolulu is 2,100 miles. 
"Our trade with Cuba last year, notwithstanding the great 
" falling off on account of the war, was $47,548,610; with 
"Hawaii it was $15,729,050, or not quite one-third as much 
" as with Cuba. In both cases the exports from the United 
" States fell far below the imports into the United States, 
" being about one-third in the case of Hawaii and one-fourth 
" in that of Cuba. Practically all the exports of Hawaii are 
" to the United States, and nearly all the imports are from 
"this country. Cuba sends us from two-thirds to three- 
" fourths of its exports and gets only about one-third of its 
"imports from the United States. The gain to our producers 
" and manufacturers would be far greater by the independence 
" of Cuba than by the taking in of Hawaii." 

There is another feature in this "annexation" treaty that 



8 



must be given serious attention. Article 3 provides that — 
"the existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign 
"nations shall forthwith cease and determine," etc. 

It is conceded that Hawaii has an important treaty with 
Japan, and perhaps treaties with other nations, and that 
Japan has become exceedingly sensitive over the effect of the 
clause in the "annexation" treaty. As long ago as in 181& 
Secretary Adams claimed that an alliance between two na- 
tions cannot absolve either of them from the obligations of 
previous treaties with third powers. (See Wharton's Digest, 
Sec. 5.) 

He even claimed that in case of conquest the conqueror 
receives the territory, subject to all its engagements and 
duties toward others, the fulfillment of which then becomes 
his own duty. That, however frequent the departure from 
this principle may be in point of fact, it could not — with any 
color of reason, be contested on the ground of right. (Ib t , id.) 

And why should a nation have the right to throw off its 
obligations by annexation? 

This matter should not be left to possible future adjust- 
ment. If Mr. Adams' proposition is sound, our relations 
with Japan make it important that there should be some un- 
derstanding before this annexation "scheme" is consum- 
mated, and the sugar planters in the Islands are also fairly 
entitled to know what their labor is to be. Hawaiian "diplo- 
macy" is not at a premium, and the United States cannot 
afford to be used as a tool to accomplish something which 
may become very expensive to her. Any friction with Japan 
will mean serious loss of trade, and that should not result, 
nor be risked at a time when the nations of the whole world 
are engaged in a great struggle for commercial supremacy or 
increased trade. 

We have had persistent effort for months to induce the 
American people to assume that Japan has designs on the 
Islands. That talk is fully exploded, not only in the diplo- 
matic correspondence with Secretary Sherman, but by Mr. 
Theo. L. Noyes in a letter fromTokio to the Washington Star 
of July 6, 1897, wherein Count Okuma, the Japanese Secretary 
of State, said — ■ 

" The Japanese government and the Japanese people have 
" no idea of menacing the independence of Hawaii. Nothing 
" could be farther from their wishes and purposes. They will 
" be quite content if their treaty rights are observed and 
"respected." 

The Count proceeded to outline what he thought our own 
policy should be and gave excellent reasons. He said — 



9 



"As Hawaii lies between the United States and Japan, 
" somewhat nearer to the United States, some people on the 
" islands have already sought annexation by the United 
" States. But that republic should be satisfied with uphold- 
" ing the independence of Hawaii. Both the United States and 
'* Japan have an interest in maintaining the status quo. 
" This arrangement is most beneficial for all concerned. I 
" cannot understand that the United States should desire to 
" annex Hawaii. Politically it would be a mistake, and 
"strategically the great strength of the United States lies in 
" her solidarity." 

And Mr. Noyes — who is an "annexationist," was com- 
pelled to admit that — "Japan has no such interest in the Is- 
" lands that her present government would for a moment con- 
" template a war over their control." 

More recently Toru Hoshi, the Japanese Minister to the 
United States, has said — "That the American people should 
"regard Japan as an aggressor, lustful of aggrandizement, 
"eager to quarrel, and ready, if need be, for war, will seem 
" to them incomprehensible. And that this clamor should 
" have arisen because their government, in pursuance of clear 
" and legitimate duty, has chosen to present, in a respectful, 
"calm, and moderate way, certain reasons why a certain 
"thing should not be done, will add to the mystery." 

Miyagawa, the Japanese Consul in New York, laughs at the 
idea of Japan wanting Hawaii. He says — 

" We don't want Hawaii. We wouldn't have Hawaii. We 
" got Formosa from China, and that is costing us more than 
" it is worth. Hawaii would not be worth the money it would 
" cost to keep it going. We don't want to add such a lot of 
" Upers and worthless people to our population. The United 
"States may want them, but Japan doesn't." 

Knowing this, the crafty sugar crowd in Honolulu, who, in 
the garb of "peaceable" citizens, met in January, 1893, to 
overthrow the lawful government, more recently attempted to 
bring on some sort of a row with Japan, in order to alarm 
our people and thus hasten "annexation." By violating their 
treaty obligations with Japan this sugar-planting oligarchy 
thought it had laid the groundwork for serious Japanese in- 
terference and it hoped to use that condition to get up a " war 
feeling " and thus consolidate American sentiment to expedite 
the work in Washington ! There is no doubt whatever that 
the Hawaiian immigration trouble with Japan was brought on 
intentionally by the oligarchy, as a device to force " annexa- 
tion." What are the facts ? 

Twenty-eight years ago the first batch of Japanese immi- 



IO 

grants went to Hawaii. About eleven years ago immigration 
was resumed under a treaty with Hawaii, signed at tKe request 
of the Hawaiian government, which was then anxious to re- 
place Chinese by Japanese as " contract " laborers on the Is- 
lands. Since that time large numbers of Japanese have gone 
to Hawaii, until now there are about 25,000 of them there, 
peaceable, law-abiding people, well-liked by the owners of 
land and planters who employ them. But for some reason 
several members of the present Hawaiian cabinet represent 
that the large and increasing number of Japanese is detri- 
mental to the country, and they want us to believe that they 
threaten its independence. They have no such fear of an in- 
crease in the number of Chinese, whom they previously dis- 
liked ! 

Why did these Hawaiian conspirators suddenly obstruct the 
immigration of Japanese into Hawaii which they had previ- 
ously itiviied? Three shiploads were stopped, and not only 
the people on these ships, but others on their way to Hawaii 
suffered damage. This act was in violation of treaty. Previ- 
ously to that event the Hawaiian assembly adopted a measure 
imposing a heavy duty upon Japanese sake, an unmistakable 
and objectionable discrimination. There is no doubt what- 
ever that all this was done to invite and provoke trouble. 

The Marquis Ito, Japan's foremost statesman, says — "The 
" Emperor, I know, will not support any bellicose policy. All 
" my friends in the Ministry or in the control of the different 
" branches of the government are of the same mind as the 
" Emperor upon this subject. And Japanese public senti- 
" ment is one of strong friendship for the United States." 

Minister Hoshi says — "I have the honor to repeat that 
" Japan has absolutely no designs of any kind whatever inimi- 
" cal to Hawaii, and no motive in her dealings with that 
"country except to secure by legitimate means the due ob- 
servance of just obligations." 

This declaration leaves the jingoes without even a pretext 
for their plot to annex Hawaii on the score of Japanese inter- 
ference. 

In fact Japan's offer to arbitrate forced the crafty Hawaiian 
oligarchy to accept, and then — as if still intent upon bring- 
ing about trouble, the oligarchy commenced to shift or 
change the issue concerning the reasons assigned for refusing 
to allow the immigrants to land. 

The Japanese government at first declined to discuss the 
question, whether the possession by each free immigrant of 
$50 was bona fide or not. " The imperial government main- 
" tains that in the present case possession was prima facie 



1 1 



4t evidence of ownership. The Hawaiian government has 
4t frankly and unequivocally admitted that each of the re- 
jected free immigrants was actually in possession of $50, 
4e and has moreover declared that under the Hawaiian law 
" ' possession ' is synonymous with ' ownership.' Consequently 
" the imperial government deny that it was at any time in- 
*'cumbent on the immigrants to prove that the possession in 
4t question was bona fide." But Japan has finally considered 
to throw all questions into arbitration. 

It seems to be also proposed to foist the Nicaragua canal 
subsidy bond scheme upon this government to — in part, en- 
able the United States to protect Hawaii! Ex-Senator Warner 
Miller has discovered how the Hawaiian "job" can be made 
to fit into the Nicaragua scheme. His idea is that with Ha- 
waii a part of the United States, the Nicaragua canal becomes 
more than ever before as much of a national need as war ships 
and coast defenses. His suggestion is that having the canal 
we should be able to dispatch a naval force quickly from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific to defend Hawaii. But what if the Is- 
lands are not annexed? Can we then do without the canal? 
Certainly if annexation would make the construction of the 
canal, at a cost of perhaps $150,000,000, a necessity, that is a 
pretty substantial reason for not taking the Islands. 

The Hon. James Bryce, the author of a very able treatise 
on our government and an exceptionally able, fair and vigor- 
ous writer, in the December number of the Forum discusses 
our policy of "annexation" from the naval standpoint and 
points out its weakness. He says — 

"The argument most frequently used in the United States, 
41 to recommend the annexation of Cuba and Hawaii, is that 
"their annexation would strengthen the strategic position of 
4( America, by giving her two points of naval vantage — one 
"commanding the Caribbean Sea, and the other the Eastern 
"Pacific; thus protecting her southern and western coasts. 

" Now let it be noticed how exceptionally strong is the position 
4 ' which America already holds. Of the great Powers of the 
" world, she and Russia are the only ones that have no insular 
41 territories to defend. All the territory of the United States 
"is territory on her own continent; and all of it, except 
" Alaska, is continuous land territory. Accordingly, America 
" and Russia are the only countries no part of whose territory 
"can be cut off from them by a naval enemy. They are also 
"countries of such enormous size and such advantages for 
" defense that no one thinks of invading their interior. Since 
" Napoleon's failure in 1812, it is admitted that an attempt 
"to penetrate the interior of Russia would fail; and an at- 



12 



"tempt to invade the United States would have even less 
"chance of success. 

" Every other great European Power has territories which 
"lie at the mercy of a stronger hostile fleet. Britain has to 
" defend not only Ireland, but her vast colonial and Indian 
"dominions. France has colonies which are practically 
" hostages to England or to any other naval Power that might 
"be able to drive France off the seas. They are not very 
"important hostages; but, so far as they go, hostages they 
" are. Similarly, the even less valuable colonial possessions 
"of Germany are hostages both to France and to England, 
" as both these countries have fleets stronger than the German ; 
" and although the capture of these outlying territories would 
" not affect the issue of a European struggle, still the loss 
"would be felt by any of these Powers as, in some measure, a 
" humiliation, and would become an element to be considered 
" in settling the terms of a peace. 

" Just in the same way, Cuba and Hawaii, in the hands of 
" the United States, would be liable, at the outbreak of a war, 
" to be seized by the fleet of any enemy stronger at sea; and 
" the only way to prevent this would be for the United States 
" to maintain a fleet in the Pacific and another in the Gulf of 
"Mexico powerful enough to defend both, islands. Now, of 
"course, the United States can, if she likes, build and main- 
" tain a navy adequate for this purpose. But is it worth her 
"while to do so? Why should she spend the hundreds of 
"millions of dollars that would be needed? Of all the great 
" Powers of the world, she is the one least likely to be at- 
" tacked ; not only because she has few occasions for quar- 
"reling with other States, but also because no other State 
"has anything to win by fighting her. There is not a power 
"in the world which would not lose more than it could pos- 
" sibly gain by a war with America; so that the only circum- 
" stance that can be imagined as likely to induce a war is 
" great exasperation of feeling arising from overbearing con- 
" duct, or injurious language proceeding from one or other 
" party to the dispute. The conclusion follows that, unless 
" the United States desired to undertake some war of aggres- 
" sion — also an improbable hypothesis — she has no occasion 
" for a navy equal in numbers and armament to the navies of 
" the greatest European Powers. In other words, a great 
"navy would be to her a luxury, and a very costly luxury. We 
"in England are unluckily obliged to have a formidable 
"navy, because we are confronted by formidable and not 
" always friendly rivals, and have an immense trade and wide 
"colonial dominions to protect. We deplore the gigantic 



13 



"sums that we are annually obliged to devote to our fleet — sums 
"all the larger because fashion in naval matters changes so 
" fast that a ship which has cost some millions of dollars may 
" in a few years be pronounced obsolete. It is, however, 
" supposed — whether rightly or wrongly I need not inquire — 
" that Britain cannot help herself, and must go on increasing 
"her annual naval vote. 

*'I am aware that some of my valued friends in the United 
"States, such as Captain Mahan and Mr. Theodore Roose- 
"velt, do not agree with the view I am stating. Neverthe- 
less, I must again express my belief that the United States 
" is under no such necessity as either England or her 
" European neighbors to create a great and costly navy. A 
" few vessels, sufficient to protect the rights of American 
" citizens in the territories of semi-civilized States, seem suf- 
" ficient for any needs that are likely to arise; seeing that 
" the real strength of the country is to be found in its territorial 
" invulnerability and in the fact that no other country can hope 
" to gain anything from strife with it. With these advantages, 
"and with her immense population and wealth, America is 
" powerful enough to be able to dispense in the future, as she 
" has successfully dispensed in the past, with those armaments 
"the maintenance of which presses with such terrible weight on 
" England and France, on Germany and Italy. 

" If there be any force in these considerations, it follows 
" that the annexation of either Cuba or Hawaii would be a source 
" not of strength, but of weakness. It may be proper for 
"America to see that neither island falls into the hands of 
" any possible naval enemy. Neither, however, is threatened 
" with any such danger ; and the expression of the feelings of 
"the United States would be sufficient at any time to avert 
"it, just as a dispatch of Mr. Seward's led Louis Napoleon to 
"withdraw his troops from Mexico." 

We are taxed enough already without taking Hawaii and 
her debt, behind which lie enormous expenditure for battle- 
ships, forts and an increase of the army, subsidy cable, Oregon 
railway and a bond subsidy Nicaragua scheme. Ex-Secretary 
of the Navy Herbert admits that if — "we annex Hawaii we must 
" add largely to our Pacific fleet ; that we cannot otherwise de- 
" fend this outpost, 2,100 miles from our present boundaries." 
We have in Pacific waters the Asiatic fleet, with six cruisers 
and gunboats, and the Pacific fleet, with one battleship, two 
monitors and four cruisers and gunboats, forming together an 
ample fleet under existing conditions. The annexation of 
Hawaii would necessitate keeping in Pacific waters double 
the number of war vessels now there and the Government 



i 4 



would have to proceed at once with the construction of these 
additional ships, unless it unwisely weakened the Atlantic fleet 
to supply them. The construction of these vessels would re- 
quire an expenditure of perhaps $20,000,000, besides the an- 
nual cost of maintenance, cost of forts and fortifications in 
the Islands, a cable line and a navy yard, with troops. All 
these expenditures would be paid by the American people, 
not by the people of Hawaii. Most of the latter are poor and no 
more revenue could be got from them than would be required 
to carry on the government in the Islands. Indeed, it is 
highly probable that even for this purpose the people of the 
United States would have to contribute. 

The Senator from Alabama is reported as admitting that if 
Great Britain had a Panama Canal, our possession of Hawaii 
for defense would avail nothing. He says — " Billions of dollars 
" spent in coast fortifications, the erection of a tremendous 
" naval station in the Hawaiian Islands and the construction 
" of an extensive fleet would not neutralize the vast advantage 
" which Great Britain would possess in the undisputed control 
" of the Panama Canal. With time and power to erect defenses 
"at each end of that canal, Great Britain would be then in 
"truth the mistress of the seas." 

It would seem from this as if we were about to saddle an 
enormous expenditure on our people for Hawaii, when it has 
no sort of compensating advantage, and especially if Great 
Britain builds an Isthmian canal. 

And what is the fact concerning so-called "American" in- 
vestment in the Hawaiian Islands. 

Sugar corporations (40), total capital stock $28,274,000 

Sugar companies, not incorporated (22), estimated 

value 3,000,000 



In the 22 companies not incorporated, over one-third of 
their value is owned by the British, one-sixth by Hawaiians, 
one-sixth by Germans, over one-tenth by Norwegians, less 
than one-eighth by Americans. 

Of the 40 corporations, 67 per cent of the total capital 
stock is reported owned by "Americans," but nearly half of 
this 67 per cent, to wit, 32 per cent, is found in oneSan Fran- 
cisco corporation ; nearly 10 per cent of the total capital 
stock is found in one other San Francisco corporation, show- 
ing 42 per cent of the 67 total ("American") per cent 
in two San Francisco corporations ! In fact we find that 4 of 
the 40 are San Francisco corporations, the 4 having $13,500,- 



i5 

ooo or 74 per cent of the total $18,594,695 so-called " Ameri- 
can " stock ! (See House Ex. Doc. 1, Part 1, pp. 1081-2, 

53 d > 3d.) 

This explains the activity of a few rich men in San Fran- 
cisco in this matter ! But while these comparatively few per- 
sons there and some in Honolulu may be able to bring the 
"Board of Trade" of San Francisco to the support of this 
treaty, neither that city nor the State of California favors it. 
Quite the reverse. The future of California and therefore of San 
Francisco consists largely in advancing the domestic beet- 
sugar industry of that State which this treaty antagonizes. 
The same can be said — in a lesser degree, of the future of 
Oregon and of Washington whose Senators may or may not 
listen to the Oregon R. & T. Co. — understand the real feeling 
of the people of those States. They will learn later — perhaps 
too late, that they represent States in which the domestic sugar 
industry promises to become a great industrial factor, with 
more developing power and greater force among the people 
than is possessed by a foreign "sugar trust" and a railway 
company. 

It is a great mistake to assume that the second sober thought 
of the American people favors this "scheme." Certain 
States, in a f rmal manner, may have somewhat equivocally 
adopted an "annexation" resolution but if left to popular 
vote and thorough explanation the American people would re- 
ject it. Nebraska for instance in her Republican State Con- 
vention in August, 1897, said — 

"The Hawaiian Islands should be controlled 'by the United 
"States, and no foreign power should be permitted to inter- 
fere with them." Just what the intention of that word 
"controlled" was, every one must discover for himself. As 
the Irishman said, " it's a trifle evasive." 

The following dispatch indicates that our new policy is 
exciting more or less comment in several circles that have 
trade interests in the Pacific and a very considerable popula- 
tion in and trade with Hawaii. A dispatch says — 

" The Australian press is hysterical over the announcement 
" of German correspondents that the United States are after 
" the^Samoan Islands. The contention in Australia is that 
"the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United 

States is preliminary to an attempt to secure the Samoan 
*' group." And if the United States annex Hawaii in the 
North Pacific, why not Samoa in the South Pacific? 

It might be as well, perhaps, to discover how far this 
"annexation " microbe has spread before Congress embarks 
on this perilous "annexation" policy. 



i6 



For many weary months the people of the United States 
have been treated every morning and nearly every evening 
to something new from Honolulu about Hawaii ! 

The writers have been fertile in resource and they have 
undoubtedly done a good deal of " missionary " work among 
those of us who may allow foreigners to do our thinking. 
The "boom" on annexation is sinking below the horizon 
and patronage won't save it. The latest idea comes from 
Mr. Hatch, who — in the language of the street, springs the 
" coffee-raising racket " on us, which is only another appeal to 
the supposed cupidity of the average American. Perhaps 
Mr. Hatch has failed to read McFarland Boyd's expose of 
that " industry " in Hawaii ! 

But we are regaled with still other tactics. The latest idea 
is to place the Princess Kaiulani and her friends in the atti- 
tude of conspiring against the late queen; to divide the so- 
called royalist party and then claim that the Hawaiians are 
not agreed among themselves and that many favor the Dole 
oligarchy— and inferentially annexation. Well, the gold 
wrung from our taxpayers under the so-called " reciprocity " 
treaty can do a great deal of this sort of work, but it is not 
true that it can buy the patriotism of the native people of the 
Hawaiian Islands. We neither know nor care whether the 
people of Hawaii want the oligarchy, the queen or the 
princess. That is a matter which the people there must 
determine for themselves. 

And then we hear it said that unless the United States 
accept this offered cession of the Islands, the oligarchy will 
cede them to some one else / 

It was only last August that a "Sugar Trust" agent from 
Honolulu, on arriving in San Francisco, said — 

" If annexation is defeated Hawaii will put her foot down. 
"She will then be ready to negotiate with Japan, England or 
" any other country." 

This was little short of impudence ! Pray who gave the 
Hawaiian oligarchy any power whatever to do anything — 
much less cede the Islands? No fact is better understood 
than that the United States would not allow the oligarchy or 
any one else to cede the Islands to anybody nor allow any 
Power to take possession. The sooner the conspirators in 
the Hawaiian Islands understand that fact, the better. It 
will save them the labor of continuing to float that sort of 
nonsense. Real diplomacy is an art; impudent threats should 
be rebuked. 



i7 



HAWAIIAN "ANNEXATION"— LET HER PEOPLE 

DECIDE. 

A very serious objection to the "annexation" of the 
Hawaiian Islands, is that there is not only no evidence that 
the people consent to it, but evidence on file that a majority 
are against it. If there is any one thing in which the American 
people have always taken pride — and in which they have had 
an advantage over other nations, it is found in their insis 
ence on that great principle that all just power is derived 
from the consent of the governed — that there should be no tax- 
ation without representation, nor any acceptance of territory — 
inhabited by intelligent people with a government, without 
the consent of the people, unless, of course by conquest. 

Our action toward the Republic of Brazil in 1889 ^as con- 
tained in instructions to our Minister to recognize the new 
government — " as soon as a majority of the people should have 
"signified their assent to its establishment and mainte- 
" nance." 

In the case of Chile, our Minister was instructed in 1891 to 
recognize the new government, "if it was accepted by the 
people," and in the case of Venezuela, in 1892, we condi- 
tioned our recognition of the new government on the fact 
that " it must be fully established, in possession of the power 
"of the nation and accepted by the people." 

As our own government was based upon the consent of the 
people, it has been the one marked feature in our policy. It 
is fundamental with us. It lies at the base of our institutions, 
and we may not honorably nor safely disregard it in our deal- 
ings involving the peaceful "annexation" of territory, 
especially where the people protest and where the sway of those 
who would cede, is in issue as to their power and moral right: 

Are we proceeding with a recognition of these things in 
this Hawaiian business ? Quite the reverse! It is nowhere 
proposed by the oligarchy in Hawaii to submit the question 
of " annexation " to the 13,000 people of the Islands fairly 
entitled to vote without the application of conditions or a 
test oath ! 

In the case of the proposed annexation of Santo Domingo 
to the United States, there was a clause providing for the 
consent of the people! (Appendix Cong. Globe, 42d, 1st, p. 
43.) And a vote was taken. (See Hough's Constitutions, 
vol. 2, p. 532, note.) 

In the case of the contest between Chile and Peru, the 
former recognized General Iglesias as President of Peru, but 
President Arthur in 1883 said — 

"When the will of the Peruvian people shall be manifested, 



i8 



"I shall not hesitate to recognize the government approved 
" by them." (Wharton's Digest, p. 550, sec. 70.) 

And Secretary Frelinghuysen expressly said in 1884 that 
the State Department would — 11 not recognize a revolutionary 
" government claiming to represent the people in a South 
"American State, until it is established by a free expression of 
"the will of the people." (Ib., id.) 

There never was a proposition on the part of the United 
States to accept a cession of the Hawaiian Islands without 
the consent of the people. When, in 1854, a cession was con- 
templated, Secretary Marcy said — 

" I understand that the measure proposed by the people, and 
'* that in which the present rulers are disposed to concur, is 
"'annexation,' as distinguished from protection." 

(See House Ex. Doc. 1, Part 1, p. 122, 53d Cong., 3d.) 

Mr. Seward, in 1867 — in referring to Hawaiian reciprocity 
and "annexation," refers to the supposed wish of the people. 
(See same Doc, p. 143.) 

And ex- President Johnson, in alluding to the same subject 
in 1868, was evidently looking for the voice of the people in 
Hawaii; their voluntary application, and not the desire of a 
mere oligarchy. (See same Doc, p. 146.) 

In July, 1866, Secretary Seward proposed to purchase of 
Denmark the Islands of Santa Cruz, St. Thomas and St. Johns. 
In May, 1867, Denmark replied — among other things, that 
she would not cede them without the consent of the inhabitants, 
and Mr. Seward was finally forced to accede to this and the 
people voted in favor of the proposed cession. But even that 
treaty failed. (Wharton, vol. 1, pp. 416-417.) 

Secretary Seward recognized the consent of the people as the 
basis of our action, when in November, 1862, he said — 

"A revolutionary government is not to be recognized until 
" it is established by the great body of the population of the State 
"it claims to govern." (Wharton, vol. 1, p. 542.) 

In General Grant's second message (1870), referring to the 
revolution in France, he said — "As soon as I learned that a 
u republic had been proclaimed at Paris, and that the people 
"of France had acquiesced in the change, the Minister of the 
" United States was directed," &c (Wharton, Vol. 1, p. 544-} 

In his first message President Hayes, in 1877, said — "It 
"has been the custom of the United States when revolution- 
" ary changes have occurred in Mexico to recognize the de 
" facto government as soon as it shall appear to have the approval 
" of the Mexican people." (1 Wharton, p. 546.) 



i 9 



The Hawaiian oligarchy did not have and has not now the 
consent of the people. By what right, therefore, has Secre- 
tary Sherman or any one else to call Hawaii a "republic"? 
It is a misnomer and it deceives. 

Mr. Thurman frankly conceded in the debate on the San 
Domingo resolutions, Dec. 21, 1870 (Cong. Globe, p. 263, 
41st, 3d) — that " It is against the spirit of this age " for, 
a government to annex any people without their consent. 11 
That even Napoleon, despot as he has been called, did not 
annex Savoy and Nice to France until the people of Savoy and 
Nice voted in favor of annexation. 

And Senator Edmunds, p. 263, said— "We ought not to 
u annex the people of Dominica without their consent, 11 and he 
even agreed with the Senator from Ohio that we ought not to 
annex them with their consent. 

That idea accounted for the second proposition in Senator 
Morton's Dominica resolutions (Cong. Globe, p. 53, 41st, 
3d), as follows — 

{t 2. The desire and disposition of the people of the said re- 
public to become annexed to the United States." 

In fact there was not only a provision in the San Domingo 
treaty to leave "annexation" to the people, but in March, 
1870, they voted 1,006 for to 9 against annexation, and yet 
the Senate rejected the scheme ! 

The people of Texas voted for admission, as it was prac- 
tically provided that they should in the joint resolution of 
our Congress of March, 1845, submitting conditions to the 
people of Texas. The second proposition in Senator Ben- 
ton's Texas bill of December 11, 1844, was — 

il 2. The people of Texas by a legislative act or by any 
" authentic act which shows the will of the majority to express 
" their assent to annexation." 

This policy of awaiting and acting on the will of the peo- 
ple — of the majority, could not be otherwise under our sys- 
tem of government. Upon what sort of pretense can the 
United States proceed to " annex " a people without their con- 
sent who are as well qualified to exercise the elective fran- 
chise as our own laboring classes! (See House Ex. Doc. 1, 
Part 1, p. 741, 53d Cong., 3d.) A people who, ever since 
1864, and down to 1893, had their own constitution volunta- 
rily conceded to them by their chosen rulers, who had their 
own government, and it was a liberal and a wise one. Why 
should a very small per cent of the foreign voters ; denizens 
from other countries— and they voters by special dispensation 
only, without throwing off their allegiance to the United 
States, attempt to control the 109,000? The idea is so incon- 



20 



sistent with republican tenets that " annexation " without the 
consent of the people would forever render our pretenses 

odious in the eyes of the civilized world ! The Islands have 
a native population of 39,500, who for many years had their 
own government and institutions, and there is a foreign pop- 
ulation of 70,000 all told, including 3,086 Americans only, 
3,682 British and Germans, all others being Chinese, Japa- 
nese and Portuguese principally. The Americans do not cast 
over 500 to 600 votes ; not half as many as are usually cast 
for a town clerk ! 

Does any man doubt what the vote of the thirteen Ameri- 
can colonies would have been in 1776? Does any man doubt 
what the vote would be in poor, struggling Cuba? Does any 
person doubt what the voice of the people of Texas was on 
the question of its admission? Why should not the voice of the 
Hawaiian people be taken in the case of Hawaii? And espe- 
cially when the transfer means the spoliation of the crown 
and government lands of a people who are fairly educated 
and who have always been accorded their independence ? 
There are many things abhorrent to the mind of honest and 
honorable people embraced in this scheme of political manipu- 
lators to annex the Hawaiian Islands, whether the people there 
wish it or not ! Selfishness, cupidity, dishonor, duplicity and 
well nigh every conceivable violation of the rules of equity 
and political morality are involved in this proposition ! The 
people of the Islands — fairly entitled to speak, should be 
allowed a free and fair vote on "annexation" before this 
scheme is consummated ! 

The Commissioner sent there by the United States to in- 
vestigate and report the facts, in a letter to our Secretary of 
State, dated May 24, 1893, said — 

" I have put this question to several leading annexationists, 
" * * * ' If the question of annexation were submitted 
u ' to the people of these Islands who were qualified to vote for 
"'representatives under the constitution of 1887, under the 
" ' Australian ballot system, which has been adopted by your 
*' 1 legislature, what would be the result? 1 

Answer — "They have almost without exception, declared 
" that annexation would certainly be defeated! * * * There 
" is not an annexationist in the Islands, so far as I have been 
" able to observe, who would be willing to submit the question of 
"annexation to the popular vote / They have men at work in 
" all the Islands urging the natives to sign petitions for annexa- 
" tion / They seek to impress them with the opinion that if an- 
4t nexed, they will be allowed the right to vote! * * * If 
"the question of annexation by the United States should be 



" made to depend upon the popular will in these Islands, the 
" idea may as well be abandoned." (See House Ex. Doc. 
" i, Part i, p. 533, 53d Cong., 3d Session.) 

The reason for disfranchising the people by a lest oath, 
etc., was again answered in the following question and 
reply — 

Question — If the question of annexation were left to the 
people of the Islands by a ballot under the Australian system, 
with the qualification of reading and writing, what — in your 
opinion, would be the result? 

Answer — There would be an overwhelming majority against 
annexation ! (See same Doc, p. 741.) 

Question — Suppose the matter of sustaining the Provisional 
Government (/. e., the oligarchy) in its policy and purposes, 
was submitted to a popular vote in the Islands, with the qual- 
ification of a person entitled to vote for a representative, what 
would be the result ? 

Answer — I think they would be swamped ! (p. 943). 

Question — By how much? 

Answer — I should say four-fifths. (See also same Doc, p. 
977-) 

Colonel MacFarlane was chamberlain to the late King. He 
is now a resident of San Francisco, and was in the closest touch 
with Hawaiian affairs, enjoying alike the friendship and con- 
fidence of the officials of the Hawaiian republic and of the 
ex-Queen and Princess Kaiaulani. He says — 

" Of course, I assume the United States would not annex 
" Hawaii without the consent of the government. That is, a 
" majority vote of the inhabitants of Hawaii must be ob- 
tained for a ratification of the annexation treaty. 

" While I do not deny or affirm that the Hawaiians will 
"not vote for annexation under condition, I have no hesita- 
tion in saying that a plebiscite on the existing treaty ad- 
" mitting Hawaii merely as a territory would not yield five 
" affirmative votes in a hundred. 

" The statement of some American papers that the pure 
"Hawaiians favor either the present regime or annexation, is 
"misleading and untruthful." 

The situation in the Hawaiian Islands now, and ever since 
the agents of the oligarchy used our flag and marines to seize 
the government, was well expressed last July in an interview 
by J. R. Kinney, an old resident of Hawaii, and an uncle of the 
present Hawaiian Commissioner to this country. He said — 

"The tail cannot wag the dog in Hawaii much longer, and 



22 

" no one knows this any better than the members of the pres- 
"ent government in the Islands, which forms the tail end of 
"the population. It is not possible that ten per cent of the 
"population should rule the other ninety. The trouble that 
" threatens Hawaii is internal, and hence the haste of the so- 
-called 'republic' to send a commission to this country. 

"The whites, numbering 5,000, are really the head and 
"body of the government. Something like one thousand 
" natives have accepted offices and have taken the oath of 
"allegiance to the "republic." They have been bought up. 

" The others, 30,000 of them, will not be bought. 

"Moreover, the native Hawaiians are not — in the main at 
" least— the ignorant savages they have been pictured. Many 
" of them are well educated, and thousands are grounded in 
"the common branches, and can read and write English as 
" well as their native tongue. They have their schools, and 
" their own newspapers, as well as their lawyers, doctors and 
"preachers. But with all this they are without suffrage. 
"There are also 24,000 Japanese and 21,000 Chinese — all 
" excluded from the right to vote — ruled over by this handful of 
" whites." 

The idea that a few men composing a " sugar trust " should 
use the flag and forces of the United States to overthrow a 
constitutional ruler, set up an oligarchy, disfranchise the 
people and then claim to be a republic and assume to cede or 
annex the fruits of such political spoliation, is absurd ! 

Let us glance for a moment at what the Hawaiian oligarchy 
calls its "constitution." It was the work of but 37 persons 
called delegates, 19 or a majority of whom were appointed by 
the "Provisional Government," while the minority (18) was 
professedly elected, but because of the rigid test oath that was 
applied, they also were practically named by the " govern- 
ment." (House Ex. Doc. 1, Part 1, pp. 1311, 1312, 1313, 
53d, 3d.) The Hawaiians protested against such a convention, 
refused to register or vote and gave their reasons. (See same 
Doc.,p. 1316.) The " convention " met May 30, 1894. It was 
a cut-and-dried affair ; a fine specimen of " fine work," result- 
ing in all the power being retained in the hands of the few. 

The so-called constitution in Hawaii arbitrarily declared 
Dole President until December 31, 1900, and until his succes- 
sor is elected — by the Legislature! That makes it interesting 
to know that the Legislature consists of a Senate, a House 
and a "Council of State," each legislative branch having 15 
members, the President and Senate and House each choosing 5 
members to compose the " Council of State " ! Then too the 



2 3 

four members of the cabinet are ex-officio members of both 
Senate and House ! 

A joint session to elect a President consists of 34 members, 
with only 30 votes, however, as the cabinet cannot vote for 
President. A majority of all the Senators or nobles shall be 
requisite to elect a President. So that if a candidate has all 
the votes in the House and 7 Senators (22) he would still fail 
of an election, but if he attained 8 Senators he need have only 
8 Representatives ! So too 8 Senators can remain away and 
leave Mr. Dole in office for a lifetime! That's what Secretary 
Sherman calls a ' republic ' approaching us on equal terms ! 
And under this scheme a minority can control, in another 
way. It is provided that a majority of those (15) elected 
shall be a quorum, but to pass a bill a majority of the [cabi- 
net included) ig is required I So that the cabinet may control, 
by not voting / No person can vote for a Senator who does 
not possess real estate valued at $1,500 or personal property 
valued at $3,000 or an income of $600. That bars out about 
all the people / It would have shut General Grant out when 
he first went to the front ! That is a beautiful specimen of a 
Republic approaching us on equal terms. 

Then we have this benevolent clause in the oligarchic " con- 
stitution." The legislature is to restrain and prevent, by law — 
"the publication or public utterance of indecent ox seditious 
" language "! (See House Ex. Doc. 1, Part 1, 53d, 3d, p. 1351.) 

That is a scheme to prevent all criticism or attack on those 
who have seized the power and installed themselves in office ! 
(Same Doc, p. 422.) It is the counterpart of a law enacted 
under the elder Adams when President of the United States, 
which overthrew him and the federalists and which neither 
the Republican nor any other party in this country can afford — 
by " annexation " or in any other way, to indorse/ On the other 
hand the constitution of 1887 under which the queen ruled, 
provided that — 

"All men may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments 
" on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, 
" and no law shall be enacted to restrain the liberty of speech or 
" of the press." (See same Doc, p. 247.) 

The so-called annexationists in Hawaii have thus trampled 
a free press under foot in an avaricious foray. And whoever 
saw or heard of truly religious people engaging from political 
motives in the bitter denunciation of a lawful female sover- 
eign ! Her husband, Mr. Dominis, was born in Schenectady, 
N. Y., and his mother was born in Boston. (See same Doc. 

PP- 349> 735* 743> 769.) 

Then we have that beautiful scheme known as "denizen" 
citizenship in this "republic"! It came in with the famous 



24 



constitution of 1887 which the planters forced on King Kala- 
kaua (pp. 575-6) and it had the obvious purpose explained as 
follows (same Doc, p. 594) — 

" Prior to 1887 two-thirds of the foreigners in Hawaii did 
" not become naturalized. The Americans, British and Ger- 
" mans especially would not give up the protection of their 
" strong governments and rely upon that of the Hawaiian Is- 
" lands. To such persons the constitution of 1887 declared: 
" < We need your vote to overcome that of the native Haw- 
" aiians ; take the oath to support the Hawaiian government 
" with a distinct reservation of allegiance to your own/ 
"Two-thirds of the Europeans and Americans (denizens) now 
" voting were thus induced to vote in a strange land, with a 
" pledge that such an act did not affect their citizenship to 
"their native country"! (See form of oath, etc., pp. 1312,. 
1313, and Article 74, p. 1362.) 

Foreigners seizing a government by forcing a constitution on 
a people underwhich they are to vote and control without losing 
the protection of their own government ! A more cowardly, outrage- 
ous scheme than this was never devised to rob a peaceful people t 

This is an outline of what the Hawaiian " Sugar Trust " 
wants the American people to believe is a " republic "! Now 
look for one moment at the relative proportions of those who 
reside on the Islands. 

CENSUS OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. (SEE CONSULAR REPORT 
APRIL, 1897.) 

Consul-General Mills, of Honolulu, sends under date of 
February 8, 1897, the official figures showing the result of the 
census of the Hawaiian Islands. 

The Hawaiians head the list with a total of 31,019. The Japa- 
nese colonization comes next, with the Chinese a close third. 



Nationality. 


Males. 


Females. 


Total. 


Hawaiians 


16,399 


14,620 


3 x > OI 9 


Part Hawaiians 


4,249 


4,236 


8,485 


Americans 


*,975 


1,111 


3,086 


British 


1,406 


844 


2,250 


Germans 


866 


566 


1,432 


French 


56 


45 


IOI 




216 


162 


378 


Portuguese 


8,202 


6,989 


I S, I 9 I 


Japanese 


19,212 


5^95 


24,407 




i9> l6 7 


2,449 


21,616 




, 321 


134 


455 


Other nationalities 


448 


I 5 2 


600 



Total 



72,5*7 



36,503 109,020 



2 5 



It will be seen that only 3,086 of the total are Americans, 
and that the British and Germans together are more numer- 
ous than the Americans. That all three nationalities number 
but 6,700 or only 6 per cent of the total ; that there are only 
1,975 male Americans in the Islands ! It will also be noticed 
that the Hawaiians number nearly 40 per cent of the total, 
and yet these people were and are nearly all practically dis- 
franchised either by a testo&Xh or by a property qualification, or 
both. The sway of a few sugar planters is absolute. The 
Hawaiians have been " done out" of their lands, and their 
government has been stolen, and we are asked to consummate 
the job! 

And we were gravely informed last September that " the 
" Hawaiian Senate had ratified the pending 'annexation' 
"treaty." As a leading newspaper well says — 

"That was a foregone conclusion. To expect a Hawaiian 
"Senator or noble to vote against it would be as absurd as to 
"expect a burglar to vote against annexing the silver spoons 
" that a careless housekeeper had left within his reach. 

"It is a perversion of English to use the serious terms of 
"diplomacy in treating of this burlesque. There is no Haw- 
aiian Senate ; there is no Hawaiian 'Republic.' The treaty 
"is not a real treaty; it is a huge fraud and a barefaced 
"swindle. The ratification is a farce." 

The whole number of registered voters in the Islands of 
American and European origin in 1893 was only 3,715 — of 
which 2,083 were unnaturalized Portuguese, principally " con- 
tract" labor! This left only 1,624 American an d European 
voters ! About as many as would vote at an ordinary town 
meeting for a supervisor ! (See Ex. Doc. 1, Part 1, pp. 598- 
599 ; 53^, 3d.) 

The Hawaiian voters alone, in 1890, numbered 9,700, and 
all other 3,893 — about 2,000 of whom were ignorant Portu- 
guese, given the ballot solely to overcome the Hawaiians. 
(See same Doc, pp. 599, 598, 594, 595.) 

It becomes apparent at once why there is an oligarchy, a pro- 
vision for a sedition law and test oaths, and why the legisla- 
tive power is tied up with property qualifications for voters ! 
The natives are almost all barred out in the vote for nobles or 
Senators, and as the two legislative branches have been made 
equal, the oligarchy need choose only one representative — or 
none even, because the cabinet is apart of the legislature and 
the oligarchy controls thai / 

And yet 27,900 natives are able to read and write ! (See 
same Doc, p. 600.) 



26 



In the evidence taken in Hawaii by a special agent of our 
Government we find this- — 

Question — What is the reason the whites say they do not 
want the natives (Hawaiians) to have suffrage? 

Answer — They have an idea that the natives would have con- 
trol of the legislature ! That is the whole idea. They wanted 
to have the whole thing in the hands of the sugar planters ! 
* * * On the Islands of Hawaii, Maui and Kauai the nobles^ 
(in the legislature) are controlled by the sugar planters. Oahu 
is the only Island they cannot control. 

Ques. — All the Islands except Oahu elected candidates of 
sugar planters — nobles? 

Ans.— Yes. (See House Ex. Doc. i, Part i, p. 1015 — 53d, 
Cong., 3d Sess.) 

Ques. — How do the Hawaiians compare in fitness for the use of 
the elective franchise with the laboring class of the % United 
States ? 

Ans. — They compare very well indeed / (See same Doc, 
p. 741.) 

Ques.— Can the Hawaiians generally read and write? 

Ans. — Yes. It is very seldom you find a native who cannot 
read and write very well. (See same Doc, p. 740.) 

These are the fads. It shows that Hawaii is ruled by a 
" Sugar Trust" of plutocrats. How can honest and fair 
Americans endorse this "annexation" scheme? Why, even 
an Indian, if taxed in Maine, is entitled to vote. Native 
civilized persons of Indian descent, not of any tribe, are enti- 
tled to vote in Michigan. 

In Minnesota Indians and persons of mixed, white and In- 
dian blood who have adopted the customs and habits of civ- 
ilization are entitled to vote. In Hawaii — under the oli- 
garchy thousands of Hawaiians who can read and write, and 
are otherwise intelligent and who are taxed, are disfranchised 
by /^/-oaths or by a property qualification. 

In the case of Wisconsin, her constitution gave the right to 
vote not only to the usual class of citizens, but also to whiie 
foreigners who should have declared their intention of being 
naturalized ; to persons of Indian descent and to civilized 
persons of Indian descent not members of a tribe. 

And we gave the suffrage to probably a million of slaves 
old enough to vote, but not one in 100 of whom was the equal 
of the Hawaiian. 

The San Francisco organ of the Hawaiian "Sugar Trust " in 
New York attempts to show that the United States have never 
made the consent of the people — in territory acquired by the 
United States, a condition, and cites Louisiana, Florida, Texas, 



California, Alaska and the Gadsden treaty cessions of the 
southern parts of New Mexico and Arizona. There are none 
so blind as those who will not see. Louisiana, Florida and 
Alaska came to us by treaty from nations possessed of despotic 
power, in which the people are not supposed to have any 
voice, and hence neither Napoleon, Spain nor the Czar felt it 
necessary to submit those treaties to their people. They were 
supreme, not the people ! Again, the three treaties by which 
the United States obtained the territory of Louisiana, 
Florida and Alaska were grounded on the extreme military 
necessity which existed for their acquisition. 

Two were coterminous, and Alaska practically so, and impor- 
tant in the same respect in lesser degree. In case of Louisi- 
ana all treaties even with Indian tribes were to be observed, and 
above all it was expressly stipulated that she was to be 
admitted into the Union as a State as soon as possible, and in 
1811 Congress left to the people the question of framing a State 
constitution or not, and if they favored the same, they were 
to declare or not in favor of our Constitution and to there- 
upon adopt a State constitution, which was done with the 
approval of the people and Louisiana was admitted April 30, 
1812. 

Was not all this evidence of the approval of the people? 
What trashy journalism is it, then, to liken Louisiana to the 
case of Hawaii, where the "constitution" is the work of a 
few men, a self-constituted sugar plutocracy; never left to 
nor ratified by the people; who, in fact, are disfranchised by 
that very instrument itself through the coercive subterfuge of 
a test oath, which virtually says, " ratify what we have done, or 

you can't vote." 

The case of Florida was as follows: We had a dispute with 
Spain over "West Florida," in which Baton Rouge and Pan- 
mure, near Natchez and Mobile, were situated. The depre- 
dations upon American citizens and upon our commerce 
became so serious that the people of West Florida on the 26th 
of September, 1810, met in convention at Baton Rouge and 
declared the independence of West Florida as a free and inde- 
pendent State, absolved all allegiance to Spain and sought our 
protection, and we finally by treaty, consummated February 
22, 182 1, purchased the whole territory — East and West 
Florida. In 1839 the people met in convention and adopted a 
constitution and asked for admission. Here again there is no 
sort of parallel with Hawaii. 

The case of Alaska hardly requires any attention. There 
were no people in Alaska who knew what a vote meant, nor 
intelligent enough to know whether they were attached to 



28 



Russia or to the United States. California drifted to the. 
United States pending the war with Mexico, and was prac- 
tically a conquest, and hence not in point. But every move- 
ment thereafter had the assent of the people, even the Mexi- 
cans being allowed the franchise. 

In regard to the south part of Arizona, we simply extended 
its original boundary south by treaty of December, 1853,. 
Mexico having the power over the tract taken to cede it with 
or without the consent of her people, and the same was the 
case with the south part of New Mexico. 

The fact remains that we have never attempted to accept 
Hawaii without the assent of her people. She is an inde- 
pendent government— insists on calling herself a " republic," 
in which the voice of her people should be heard and heeded. 
All attempts to liken her case to acquisitions of territory by 
the United States from monarchies or from despots have no 
application whatever to Hawaii, whose people — to the extent 
of 21,000 or more, protest. 

Then we have that distinguished peripatetic "diplomat," 
Mr. Foster, interesting himself in this Hawaiian question in, 
favor of annexation. He seems to have been quite as open 
to "diplomatic" engagements recently — at fat salaries, as a 
strolling minstrel. 

As Mr. Johnson, of North Dakota, has well said — 

" He is the same man who is now the so-called expert seal 
"commissioner representing us — having a roving commis- 
sion — with authority to incur unlimited expenses, going 
" last summer to Japan and Russia, after being refused a 
"hearing, first by Pauncefote in Washington, and later by 
"Salisbury in London. This man, who is making a nice fat 
" living out of ' experting ' for us, may have drawn this bill 
" in the State Department or the Treasury Department. He 
"is an expert at surrendering; that is what he is. He got 
"$15,000 for going to Paris on a junketing expedition to 
"surrender our rights. And he did it. He made such a 
"great reputation at surrendering that when at the close of 
" the war between China and Japan it became necessary for 
"the Chinese to surrender, they sent for this past master of 
"the art of surrendering and paid him $100,000, I am told, 
" for showing Li Hung Chang how great nations surrender 
"gracefully. [Laughter.] And now we have employed this 
"accomplished master of the art of surrendering to show us 
"how to give up our few remaining rights upon the high 
"seas." 

Whether Mr. Foster was or is drawing a salary or a fee from 
the Hawaiian "Sugar Trust" to favor annexation, while 



2 9 



employed by the United States as a roving " diplomatic " 
expert, we do not know, but he gave the whole case of the 
Hawaiian oligarchy away when he conceded in the Washing- 
ton Post of December 16 that if the treaty is rejected — " it 
" will be difficult for the present Hawaiian government to 
" successfully maintain itself as against loyal opposition"! 
His talk about Japan is pure "rot"; shown to be so. His 
theory that a rejection of annexation would involve the sur- 
render of Pearl River harbor is as silly and weak as his 
further remark that rejection would necessarily carry with it 
the right of Hawaii to determine its own political destiny 
entirely uninfluenced by considerations affecting the United 
States. Upon that theory we would be bound to annex every 
island in the West Indies, or failing, to allow other nations 
to absorb them, which is too ridiculous even for Foster. 



Nashville, Dec. 15. — The American Federation of Labor 
spent the day in consideration of reports of committees. The 
Hawaiian annexation question came up on a report from the 
committee on resolutions and produced some discussion and 
the committee reported on a resolution opposing the annexa- 
tion of Hawaii, offered by T. J. Elderkin and presented the 
following substitute : 

"Whereas, There is at present pending in the United States 
" Senate a treaty providing for the annexation of the Hawaiian 
" Islands ; and 

"Whereas, That annexation would be tantamount to the 
"admission of a slave State, the representatives of which 
" would necessarily work and vote for the enslavement of 
" labor in general ; therefore be it 

" Resolved, By the American Federation of Labor that we 
"disapprove of annexation, and 

"Resolved, That we urge the United States Senate to reject 
" the treaty of annexation and to take such other steps as may 
" be necessary to maintain amicable relations with Hawaii." 

Andrew Furuseth made a warm speech opposing the annex- 
ation and George E. McNeill suggested that the substitute be 
amended so as to provide for the incoming executive council 
laying the matter before Congress, and if necessary, before 
the President, showing the opposition of the Federation to 
annexation. The substitute as amended was adopted. 



